How to respond to traditionalist catholics about their attitude towards the new mass

[bear06]

Ah, contraire. Someone did:

There were no bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore, excluding the late Archbishop Lefebvre, the excommunication not exclusive, but inclusive of laity in support of SSPX are in fact excommunicated–it is very clear in Ecclesia Dei; additionally, the definition of formal adherence to schism is clearly delineated by the procedures that were followed, which clearly allowed the late Pope John Paul II, RIP, to point to the fact that excommunication had been incurred not only by Marcel Lefebvre, but also by all in support of SSPX.

 

[bear06]

making a deal with the devil. The SSPX has seen this and will act accordingly. They would be fools to reach an accomodation with the conciliar Church. And they aren’t fools. Nor are their priests or laymen excommunicated.

One might get from the paragraph that you consider John Paul II to be the devil and that anyone following the conciliar Church a fool. I would hope I’m incorrect.

 

[bear06]

The Deposit of Faith does not reside in Alabama. Fr. Levis’ opinion carries no more weight than a 12 year old girl altar boy consulted on the same question.

Yes, but one might just think there is a possiblity that he knows more than you.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Dr. Bombay;1632765:

Ah, contraire. Someone did:

Do you have a problem with the decree of excommunication or the Kristopher’s above use of the world “all”? Of course there are some who don’t know the history of the SSPX and therefore would probably not be culpable for their support. Again, it would be hard to say that there are not many more excommunicated when the excommunication decree says:

Like I said, maybe they aren’t excommunicated but we can’t know that. We can assume that many more are.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1222

You may assume you have the power to make an assumption the Church doesn’t make. I assume you have no such power.

You’ll wait a little longer. Because they are not mentioned by name, doesn’t mean they are excommunicated. You should know this from the Bishop Bruskewitz excommunications. Sorry you don’t think it counts but it does. It’s back up to what the Vatican has already said in the decree of excommunication.

Bishop Bruskewitz is not my ordinary. He can rant all he wants. Doesn’t affect me in the least. My bishop is actually engaging in dialogue with the local SSPXers. Yes, dialogue. Very conciliar of him, don’t you think?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

One might get from the paragraph that you consider John Paul II to be the devil and that anyone following the conciliar Church a fool. I would hope I’m incorrect.

There you go assuming again.

 

[DustinsDad]

Hope is always a virtue, one we must always cultivate. I anticipate the above lady’s advent will open a number of hearts to the claims of Holy Mother Church.

So it will be the more striking differences between the false church of England and the One True Church that will be more likely to win converts, as opposed to celebrating our “commonalities” and “dialogueing” and “making nice” and “not offending”? Hmnmmm. And the farther away from the truth they go, the better for us because it’s easier to convert them then. Hmmmm again.

Therefore, it would seem, those non-Catholic religions that are “closest” to the One True Church - are actually the most dangerous to souls because souls therein will be less likely to see the errors in their false churches. Interesting. Perhaps offering episcopal rings and what not isn’t such a good idea.

Perhaps the answer is just to preach the plain truth and let the chips fall where they may. No pretending, not hiding, no sugar coating. Just preach it, and invite those outside the Church home.

Seriously now, how often do we hear a clear call from the chair of Peter to non-Catholic Christians (let alone non-Christians for a moment) for a conversion to the Catholic faith?

And no, I wasn’t thinking of any pope when I wrote the last bit

Perhaps not specifically, but it was derfinately a “slap” at the position of the Church pre-Vatican II and it’s relations with* false* churches at that time as compared to the eceu*mania *of today. I think it’d be disingenous of you to say otherwise. And ipso facto, a slap at the Church pre-Vatican II is a slap at the Vicars in charge thereof.

so if you’re thinking it was a slap at one of them, why, then you’ll have to take Alex to task over his criticism of one of them for appointing his son as a cardinal. I was thinking of others entirely.

Not at all, I think it is entirely acceptable to take the person who holds the chair of Peter to task when he causes scandal to the faithful. Such as in cases where a pope is guilty of nepotism or in cases where a pope is guilty in giving Apostolic honors and kudos to heretics.

DustinsDad

 

[marcsababa]

I guess it is time to end this thread. No one has changed their view point. I have learned a lot.

Dr. Bombay you are quite the character. Till we meet again …perhaps you might wish to deal exactly with the points laid before you i.e.:

With respect to SSPX and Ecclesia Dei the code of canon law at the following URL:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Can. 751 has stated in part that “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff…”. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre broke his vow of Holy Orders, and directly violated what our late Pope John Paul II, RIP, “ordered” for lack of a better word.

This brought another element of canon law into position at the following URL:

Can. 1364 “…a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…with the penalties mentioned…”.

This is furthered by the following canon:

Can. 1382 “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

Can. 386 is especially interesting stating that "A diocesan bishop,…, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith…He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially…catechetical instruction,…so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.

Section 2. “…, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed,…acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.”.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I never denied that Archbishop Lefebvre the Great was excommunicated. He was.

But his priests and laymen are not.

 

[DustinsDad]

…With respect to SSPX and Ecclesia Dei…

I understand using Can. 751, 1364 and 1382 - but I’m not srue what to make of your use of 386:

…Can. 386 … “A diocesan bishop,…, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith…He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially…catechetical instruction,…so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all…”

Playing the devils advocate here…Lebfevre may have been one of the few bishops who actually tried to follow this canon…

DustinsDad

 

[marcsababa]

I understand using Can. 751, 1364 and 1382 - but I’m not srue what to make of your use of 386:

DustinsDad

I was just requoting someone else’s reply. I left it in there by accident.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So it will be the more striking differences between the false church of England and the One True Church that will be more likely to win converts, as opposed to celebrating our “commonalities” and “dialogueing” and “making nice” and “not offending”? Hmnmmm. And the farther away from the truth they go, the better for us because it’s easier to convert them then. Hmmmm again. Still no reasonable indictment the intent of either pope in the giving of those gifts

Therefore, it would seem, those non-Catholic religions that are “closest” to the One True Church - are actually the most dangerous to souls because souls therein will be less likely to see the errors in their false churches. Interesting. Perhaps offering episcopal rings and what not isn’t such a good idea. **You’re welcome to your prudential judgement on that. But why are we still rapidly bouncing from one topic to another? Isn’t this about the Mass again? Oh, wait…that’s the MO, isn’t it? **

Perhaps the answer is just to preach the plain truth and let the chips fall where they may. No pretending, not hiding, no sugar coating. Just preach it, and invite those outside the Church home.

**I don’t fault that at all. Which “traditionalists,” then, shall we turn to for that “plain truth?” The SSPX? One of the groups that splintered off from them? The Diamond brothers? Pope Pius XIII or Pope Michael? **

Perhaps not specifically, but it was derfinately a “slap” at the position of the Church pre-Vatican II and it’s relations with* false* churches at that time as compared to the eceu*mania *of today. I think it’d be disingenous of you to say otherwise. And ipso facto, a slap at the Church pre-Vatican II is a slap at the Vicars in charge thereof.

**You made a charge, I answered it. I know what I was thinking about when I wrote what I wrote. You’ve no window to see into my soul, but construe as it pleases you. **

 

[DustinsDad]

Still no reasonable indictment the intent of either pope in the giving of those gifts…

A reasonable indictment of the effects thereof. It is reasonable to view such actions as cause for religious indifference among the faithful, i.e. cause for scandal. Whether the intention was good or whether it was simply a lack of courage is neither here nor there.

You’re welcome to your prudential judgement on that. But why are we still rapidly bouncing from one topic to another?

It’s all related. All part of the big picture. It also demonstrates the length towhich some folks will go to defend novelty.

I don’t fault that at all. Which “traditionalists,” then, shall we turn to for that “plain truth?”

We turn to our own faith for that plain truth - it’s still there. And we turn to our prelates and beg them for clarity and courage. We pray every morning, every night and at all times in between to Our Lord to give our shepherds courage and clarity.

The fact that clarity and courage are all to often found these days on those faithful who have been marginalized by the powers that be should hasten our resolve to pray all the harder.

You made a charge, I answered it. I know what I was thinking about when I wrote what I wrote. You’ve no window to see into my soul, but construe as it pleases you.

I simply described what you wrote, and drew the logical conclusion from it. Words mean things. Perhaps you don’t even realize the implications of what you wrote. Sort of like not realizing the implications of giving Apostolic honors to a leader of a false church.

Human error is rarely intended to be erroneous.

DustinsDad

 

[Marian_Carroll]

The thread has long ago left the topic and has gone into a difference of opinion as to the status of the SSPX.

As the original discussion appears to have concluded, the thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated on the subject.